Eruvin

one is the ruling of1 R. Eliezer2 and the other is that of the Rabbis. And on careful consideration of their statements you will find that, according to the view of R. Eliezer, he who renounces his rights to his courtyard3 renounces ipso facto his rights to his house also, and that according to the Rabbis he who renounces his rights to his courtyards does not ipso facto renounce them in respect of his house. Is not this4 obvious?5 — Rehabah6 replied: I and R. Huna b. Hinena explained that it4 was necessary only in respect of five persons who lived in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub.7 According to the ruling of R. Eliezer8 this man, when he renounces his right,9 need not renounce it [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants,10 but according to the Rabbis11 the man who renounces his rights must do so [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants.12 In accordance with whose view is13 that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his right,14 need not do it [specifically] in favour of everyone of the tenants individually?15 — ‘In accordance with whose [view’, you ask]? In accordance, of course, with that of R. Eliezer. R. Kahana taught in the manner just stated.16 R. Tabyomi taught as follows:17 In accordance with whose view is18 that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his rights,19 need not do it [specifically] in favour of every one individually?20 In accordance with whose [view, I ask, is this ruling]? — Said R. Huna b. Judah in the name of R. Shesheth: ‘In accordance with whose [view’ you ask]? In accordance with that of R. Eliezer. Said R. Papa to Abaye: What is the ruling according to R. Eliezer,21 if a tenant22 explicitly stated: ‘I do not renounce my right [in my house]’,23 and, according to the Rabbis,24 if he explicitly stated: ‘I renounce my right [in my house]’?25 Is R. Eliezer's reason26 based on the view that any tenant who renounces his right in his courtyard renounces ipso facto his right to his house [and the ruling, consequently, would not apply here] since that man [explicitly] stated: ‘I do not renounce my right’; or is it possible that R. Eliezer's reason26 is that people do not live in a house without a courtyard27 and, consequently, even where a man28 states: ‘I do not renounce my right in my house’, his declaration may be disregarded,29 so that though he said: ‘I would live [in the house alone]’, his statement is null and void?30 And what is the ruling, according to the Rabbis, if he [explicitly] stated: ‘I renounce my right’? Is the Rabbis’ reason31 the view that a man who renounces his right in his courtyard does not ipso facto renounce his right to his house [and their ruling consequently would not apply here] since this man [specifically] declared: ‘I renounce my right’; or is it possible that the Rabbis’ reason31 is that it is not usual for a man to give up completely his house and his courtyard and thus become a mere stranger as far as these are concerned [and their ruling would, therefore, apply here also, because] though this man stated: ‘I renounce my right’ his declaration is to be disregarded? — The other replied: Both according to the Rabbis and according to R. Eliezer since the man declared his wishes they must be respected.32 I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY AT PASSOVER BY EATING ‘ARKABLIN.33 What [is the meaning of] ‘ARKABLIN? — Resh Lakish replied: Prickly creepers.34 CHAPTER III MISHNAH. WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD] MAY ‘ERUB35 AND SHITTUF36 BE EFFECTED, EXCEPT WATER AND SALT,37 AND SO ALSO MAY ALL [KINDS OF FOODSTUFFS] BE PURCHASED WITH MONEY OF THE SECOND TITHE38 EXCEPT WATER AND SALT.39 IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [TO CONSUME] BOTH WATER AND SALT. AN ‘ERUB40 MAY BE PREPARED FOR THE NAZIRITE WITH WINE41 AND FOR AN ISRAELITE WITH TERUMAH,42 BUT SYMMACHUS RULED: WITH UNCONSECRATED PRODUCE ONLY.43 [AN44 ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED] FOR A PRIEST IN A BETH PERAS,45 AND R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IN A GRAVEYARD,46 [ which it follows that R. Eliezer assumes every man to be acting generously and wholeheartedly in the interests of his neighbour. the neighbours. to his house, from which it follows that they do not regard every person to be of a generous disposition. Baraitha of the five tenants (cf. next note). his house. his house also. house also. from him’. rnte /// d"gt which seems to be a repetition or an alternative to the preceding one is absent from MS.M. points out that for an ‘erub of courtyards only bread may be used (cf. infra 71b) and restricts the term of ‘erub here to one of courtyards only. objects on the Sabbath from the courtyards into the alley and vice versa. V. Glos. the status of a dining center for all who participate in it. (v. Deut. Xlv, 22ff). regarded as a suitable food. ‘erub. beth peras, may an ‘erub for a priest be deposited.